UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions/Archive/2010 04: Difference between revisions
m (Content) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
#::I want to watch my language? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to cunt? I'm not the one trying to meatpuppet through deletions because I can't take it that people are making fun of my group. I'm not the one lying on deletions nominations. I'm not the one using the admin pages for my own personal agenda. This isn't fucking Brainstock, everything doesn't just go your own way because, here we have rules that are equal for everyone, as you're about to find out. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:19, 19 April 2010 (BST) | #::I want to watch my language? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to cunt? I'm not the one trying to meatpuppet through deletions because I can't take it that people are making fun of my group. I'm not the one lying on deletions nominations. I'm not the one using the admin pages for my own personal agenda. This isn't fucking Brainstock, everything doesn't just go your own way because, here we have rules that are equal for everyone, as you're about to find out. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:19, 19 April 2010 (BST) | ||
#:::I don't see why I must respond to such accusations, but I have a question: Seeing that you mentioned the word "group", since when do policy/tactic pages belong to a single group? Judging from [[UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests/Archive/Jan_2009#The_humanity_doctrine|this]], Iscariot, I had been under the assumption that as you said over there, this is not a group page but merely a policy/tactic like the Sacred Ground Policy, nothing that would belong to any specific group. If it does belong to [[Humanity's Saviors]] as you are now implying, shouldn't it be a subpage of that group then? [[User:G F J|G F J]] 15:27, 19 April 2010 (BST) | #:::I don't see why I must respond to such accusations, but I have a question: Seeing that you mentioned the word "group", since when do policy/tactic pages belong to a single group? Judging from [[UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests/Archive/Jan_2009#The_humanity_doctrine|this]], Iscariot, I had been under the assumption that as you said over there, this is not a group page but merely a policy/tactic like the Sacred Ground Policy, nothing that would belong to any specific group. If it does belong to [[Humanity's Saviors]] as you are now implying, shouldn't it be a subpage of that group then? [[User:G F J|G F J]] 15:27, 19 April 2010 (BST) | ||
#::::I don't have accusations, I have facts, you said the NDEM never existed in your deletion nomination, then the group leader showed up and said that not only did it still exist, but was active. You said something that was patently untrue, you lied. I expect this from the DEM, but I thought you were intelligent enough to pick lies that weren't so easily proven. | |||
#::::The tactic page belongs to us as we're the original authors and we'll decide on the evolution of that page as the only users of that doctrine. Sacred Ground Policy isn't owned? Do you want to tell me why there's a DEM category on it then? Oh, and on the templates as well. Seems like you've been going round demanding that people take off the DEM category from their pages because one of your monkeys that (like you) knows fuck all about the wiki decided to stick the category on community pages. How about you go remove that category and then go and apologies to all those users you went around making demands of before you try and out do me here. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:46, 19 April 2010 (BST) | |||
==Served Speedy Deletions== | ==Served Speedy Deletions== | ||
Revision as of 14:46, 19 April 2010
This is the archive page for UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions.
Speedy Deletion Queue
Talk:The humanity doctrine
Criterion 1, with no content and just a single redirect in the version history. Apart from one on A/MR, no links to this page exist. G F J 15:01, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- Keep - Yet another attempt by the DEM to delete a page they have no reason to and belongs to a group they don't like. I'm sending this idiot to A/VB later. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 15:08, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- OK, if your group has an interest in an empty talk page, I'll withdraw the request. I do find it hard to understand why an empty page should be preserved, but if that's what people want, it's fine with me. So, the request is withdrawn. By the way, though, you might want to watch your language. G F J 15:12, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- I want to watch my language? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to cunt? I'm not the one trying to meatpuppet through deletions because I can't take it that people are making fun of my group. I'm not the one lying on deletions nominations. I'm not the one using the admin pages for my own personal agenda. This isn't fucking Brainstock, everything doesn't just go your own way because, here we have rules that are equal for everyone, as you're about to find out. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:19, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- I don't see why I must respond to such accusations, but I have a question: Seeing that you mentioned the word "group", since when do policy/tactic pages belong to a single group? Judging from this, Iscariot, I had been under the assumption that as you said over there, this is not a group page but merely a policy/tactic like the Sacred Ground Policy, nothing that would belong to any specific group. If it does belong to Humanity's Saviors as you are now implying, shouldn't it be a subpage of that group then? G F J 15:27, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- I don't have accusations, I have facts, you said the NDEM never existed in your deletion nomination, then the group leader showed up and said that not only did it still exist, but was active. You said something that was patently untrue, you lied. I expect this from the DEM, but I thought you were intelligent enough to pick lies that weren't so easily proven.
- I don't see why I must respond to such accusations, but I have a question: Seeing that you mentioned the word "group", since when do policy/tactic pages belong to a single group? Judging from this, Iscariot, I had been under the assumption that as you said over there, this is not a group page but merely a policy/tactic like the Sacred Ground Policy, nothing that would belong to any specific group. If it does belong to Humanity's Saviors as you are now implying, shouldn't it be a subpage of that group then? G F J 15:27, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- I want to watch my language? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to cunt? I'm not the one trying to meatpuppet through deletions because I can't take it that people are making fun of my group. I'm not the one lying on deletions nominations. I'm not the one using the admin pages for my own personal agenda. This isn't fucking Brainstock, everything doesn't just go your own way because, here we have rules that are equal for everyone, as you're about to find out. --
- OK, if your group has an interest in an empty talk page, I'll withdraw the request. I do find it hard to understand why an empty page should be preserved, but if that's what people want, it's fine with me. So, the request is withdrawn. By the way, though, you might want to watch your language. G F J 15:12, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- The tactic page belongs to us as we're the original authors and we'll decide on the evolution of that page as the only users of that doctrine. Sacred Ground Policy isn't owned? Do you want to tell me why there's a DEM category on it then? Oh, and on the templates as well. Seems like you've been going round demanding that people take off the DEM category from their pages because one of your monkeys that (like you) knows fuck all about the wiki decided to stick the category on community pages. How about you go remove that category and then go and apologies to all those users you went around making demands of before you try and out do me here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:46, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- The tactic page belongs to us as we're the original authors and we'll decide on the evolution of that page as the only users of that doctrine. Sacred Ground Policy isn't owned? Do you want to tell me why there's a DEM category on it then? Oh, and on the templates as well. Seems like you've been going round demanding that people take off the DEM category from their pages because one of your monkeys that (like you) knows fuck all about the wiki decided to stick the category on community pages. How about you go remove that category and then go and apologies to all those users you went around making demands of before you try and out do me here. --
Served Speedy Deletions
MBT Shoes, Do They Really Help To Improve Health Condition, And Even Lose Weight
Created by a spambot... -Poodle of DoomM! 
T 01:58, 19 April 2010 (BST)
- Deleted ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 02:04, 19 April 2010 (BST)
Malton Police Department/Strike Team
Criterion 1, this page has been created and emptied by a single author, apparently this author has recreated it at Malton Vice Unit. G F J 13:53, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- Deleted ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 19:10, 18 April 2010 (BST)
DEM NW1 Advisory
Criterion 3, this redirect is not in use. G F J 13:39, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- Deleted ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 19:10, 18 April 2010 (BST)
Malton PD Strike Division
Scheduled. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:33, 17 April 2010 (BST)
- Deleted ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 18:49, 17 April 2010 (BST)
Whittenside Cemeteries
--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:02, 16 April 2010 (BST)
Crit 4
Category:DB subpages--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:07, 16 April 2010 (BST)
Hollomstown Wastelands
--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:27, 16 April 2010 (BST)
Image:Bloodline.gif
Uploaded it, won't be needed... shame really. -Poodle of DoomM! T 03:49, 15 April 2010 (BST)
- Deleted ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 03:52, 15 April 2010 (BST)
Dummy
Malton College of Medicine/medic runs/Eastonwood dummy is a dummy page used only by me when setting up a new site for MCM. --Sherry talk MCM 00:15, 15 April 2010 (BST)
 |
EATEN |
00:48, 15 April 2010 (BST)crit 1 sigh. why can't we delete these on sight again? --
06:11, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- Because we've had sysops that used such abilities to force their own opinion on the community and cover up their own misconduct. Crit 9. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:41, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- Really? Are there any examples? -- 08:36, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- Nubis, Hagnat, Bob. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:38, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- I only meant things like crit 9's (yet another of the crits which overlaps with crit 1), so I guess hagnat might be a perpetrator, haven't read through his a/m archives enough to remember. -- 09:10, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- Um, does this need renaming? 15:23, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- No. It's in the template space, not the main space. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:24, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- No. It's in the template space, not the main space. --
- Um, does this need renaming?
- I only meant things like crit 9's (yet another of the crits which overlaps with crit 1), so I guess hagnat might be a perpetrator, haven't read through his a/m archives enough to remember. -- 09:10, 14 April 2010 (BST)
- Nubis, Hagnat, Bob. --
- Really? Are there any examples? -- 08:36, 14 April 2010 (BST)
2010-04-12
Could you please delete User:Alton/Character_Name? I've created this page by accident. Thanks in advance! --Alton 18:42, 12 April 2010 (BST)
|
EATEN |
18:48, 12 April 2010 (BST)Crit 8
This page, thanks --
TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:50, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- Deleted~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 21:28, 11 April 2010 (BST)
Crit 14
Crit 14 is DDR being a smartarse and spoiling perfectly good lulz. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:46, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- But it says in the land of lubbadubs that to be crit 14 you have to supply a link to the previous A/AOFUB case this featured on... -- 09:49, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- You do realise that you've doomed Ross to eternal torment? There's now a permanent link to that page here that can't be removed due to substitute text being used. Poor guy can never get rid of a red link with his name in it due to you :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:57, 11 April 2010 (BST)
- You do realise that you've doomed Ross to eternal torment? There's now a permanent link to that page here that can't be removed due to substitute text being used. Poor guy can never get rid of a red link with his name in it due to you :P --
Journal:Menschen Metzger
crit 7--Menschen Metzger 23:30, 9 April 2010 (BST)
|
EATEN |
23:32, 9 April 2010 (BST)User Page
User:Kliqueman & User_talk:Kliqueman --Kliqueman 18:05, 8 April 2010 (BST)
Talk:Paranormal Defense Initiative
Missed talk page of one speedily deleted earlier. -Poodle of DoomM! T 22:32, 7 April 2010 (BST)
Paranormal Defense Initiative
Page was blanked by the original author. I assume he wants it gone... -Poodle of DoomM! T 13:26, 7 April 2010 (BST)
- I think so too. Thanks. Done. -- 13:33, 7 April 2010 (BST)
Renaissance
Hmm, in development since Jan 09 an one sentence. Delete methinks. --
03:24, 5 April 2010 (BST)
lots of fails
Image:Jägermeister.JPG, Image:Jägermeister.PNG, Image:Jägermeister.jpg, Image:Jägermeister.png, all need to be deleted as unused (and unusable) crit 1's of Image:Jagermeister.jpg. --
12:55, 2 April 2010 (BST)
|
EATEN |
- Also, I almost deleted this page too by accident. I'm a silly moo. :( 13:19, 2 April 2010 (BST)
Roftwood Wastelands
Demerged.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:05, 1 April 2010 (BST)
|
EATEN |
21:08, 1 April 2010 (BST)Talk:Edgecombe Parks
Missed talk page by Mis. :P —Aichon— 01:35, 1 April 2010 (BST)
|
EATEN |
01:37, 1 April 2010 (BST)Edgecombe Parks
Demerged.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:31, 31 March 2010 (BST)
|
EATEN |
21:35, 31 March 2010 (BST)
